Pages

November 6, 2010

Old Harry is something you would normally just scrape off your shoe. But we're stuck with the demented, wicked crank for another Senate term. I doubt that he'll make another complete term, due to mental issues, or a fatal error while putting on his strait jacket.

The Repubs have to go for his throat or so disable him by scorn, irony and parody that even the Donks will retch in his presence. His brief, despicable turn on the national stage is over; even the MSM hacks will eventually realize that he's not news.

Harry got together with Durbin and Schumer (now there's a trifecta from Hell), to proclaim THIS WARNING to Republican Senators. Well, Rubio by himself could intellectually knee-cap these three human stains in his sleep. Let the bloody and vicious partisanship begin! The Donks have much to answer for.

November 5, 2010

I'd rather do knee-bends over a lit Bunsen Burner than read the financial news. This stems from my life-long hatred for Econ 100 and the Samuelson textbook, and from my youthful and phony indifference to money.I've almost always had as much money and things as I needed, and have spent most of my adult life disposing of things I thought I needed when I acquired them. In fact, Self-Storage units have meant a lot to me, as well as yard sales (to get stuff), and land fills (to unload stuff).

Until now I always thought that I, and my family, would make out and make do. We'd survive no matter what. Even getting old, and some would say, sick, hasn't abolished this conviction.

However, it's under pressure now in Connecticut, where we replaced a Republican governor with a Democrat, through voter shenanigans. We sent a regulation Democrat Prog to Dodd's old seat, and we re-elected the entire Democrat delegation to The House in Washington. Our State House is huge majority Democrat. We're broke with the highest per-capita debt in the country, our bond rating has been downgraded by Moody's, and the ideologically inbred tribe that caused it still rules.

Listen to them, and your hair hurts. Nowhere in their northeast political orthodoxy is the awareness that consumers require producers, or that the "little guy" is little because he chose to be. Or that odious "Big Business" also creates "well-paying jobs" for "working families", that EVERY claim on society is a "special interest", and that the northeast is post, post, post-industrial. Heavy industries are in ragweed covered graves or moving to red states.

You hear these hacks, but you really don't. They're like painted shamans in the frothing stage of Talking in Tongues, reciting doggerel from temple carvings in a vanished language. They confuse you, but they also piss you off because the SEIU apes understand and treasure every word of it. It must be explained in Samuelson's chapter on The Endless Free Lunch. No one could be that stupid without being educated to it.

But someone is that stupid, and it's Ben Bernanke. Ben is going to print $600 billion and buy Treasuries with it - in the crazed belief that this will make Treasuries more attractive by raising their interest rate from nearly zero (to what?) cause a borrowing, and therefore a spending, boom while devaluing the dollar and monetizing the debt through inflation. If there's more let me know.

Ben is an economist retained by Obama, along with Tim Geithner. In a world where Paul Krugman can win a Nobel Prize in Economics, this isn't as freakish as it seems. If you want more on the economic disaster to come, search Instapundit for "Quantitative Easing", and see what it means to you. And remember these awful facts:

In 2009 the Federal government spent $3.5 trillion and received $2.1 trillion in revenue. They borrowed $1.4 trillion, or 40% of the budget and 10% of GDP. Our publically-held debt is $7.5 trillion, without Bernanke's lunacy. If the "recession" ended today, our annual deficit and borrowing requirement is $1 trillion for ten years. And at the current spending rate, by 2020 we'll be $20 trillion in debt with annual interest payments of almost a trillion dollars.

I was curious about the fate of 34 Democratic Congressman who voted against party lines and refused to support the ObamaCare bill last March.

It didn't appear to help them.

Out of the 34 who voted against ObamaCare, nearly two-thirds were fired by their constituents; 21 of these Democratics lost their jobs (62%) in the 2010 elections.

These are the numbers. This means that about a third of last Tuesday's Republican pickup in the House of Representatives was comprised of Democrats who crossed party lines and voted against ObamaCare™.

Hmmmm. If this keeps up, 2012 will be the icing on the Conservative cake.

Our Hostile President

Can we do it? Can we maintain this level of involvement? We are at war, the President of the United States has already identified us - patriotic Americans - as his enemies.

November 4, 2010

Down here we want it all ... a veritable Super Slam breakfast every morning.

The irony is that, of course, "all" resides in the heavenlies.

I am reminded in times like these of the words of one of my law school professors: "A liberal wakes up every morning and says, 'Lord, what good can I do today?' and a conservative says, 'Lord, thank you that my throat was not slit last night while I slept.'" This was his New York way of saying that human nature and a fallen world beckon us to be grateful for even the little things. And furthermore, human nature oftentimes causes us to fail to appreciate the big and really good things, too.

Like you, I am bummed that Greenjeans escaped in Nevada. Every conservative feels this. There were some other near misses in the Senate; in the House, Barney Frank won ... and handily ... and Ruth McClung (what a candidate in AZ-7) narrowly lost in a gerrymandered Demo district.

But still, overall, I am much more than glad to have survived the night, for it was a very good night indeed. The repudiation of all things Obama/Demo at all levels of the federal and state governments was clear. The most Republicans hold office nationwide (federal and state) than at any time since the 1920s. Today, Rush said that 680 Republicans won elections in state legislatures nationwide, in large part due to Tea Party activism. And Sarah Palin? Of her Demo targets, 18 of 20 went down.

And look at the new red Midwest. And Republicans won in the Northeast. They are close even to winning the governor's mansion in CT. Rhod? Are you supervising the count?

As a result of the smashing success, even Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are talking the talk ... now, to ensure that they walk it. Actually, I believe they will do a much better job this time because folks are engaged.

I have seen reports that talk about the strange lack of celebration by Republicans and their supporters. I view this as an extremely good sign.

All this is to say our side is winning and acting like a winner, too. More reason to be optimistic.

You see, when your goal is a championship, a first down is no big deal.

So, let's appreciate the successes we have as we march down the field. Sunny side up, please.

Still, we keep our eyes fixed on the ultimate goal.

Such a focus will help us enjoy the first downs along the way even more.

Note: I am working on a post re: some lessons I think we conservatives can draw from Tuesday's results. There's been some interesting commentary out there, but none of it quite clears a landing zone like a Daisy Cutter.

Ahh, no, he isn't and the constant thrumming is ruining someone's crease. The fact that the election went as well as it did in spite of media opposition speaks volumes for the American people. So called journalists epitomized by the likes of Tingles and Olberman are not not capable of understanding the breath and depth of the disgust that is the foundation of yesterday's events.

Look at this map showing the results of the nation's House races:

The Dems are hemorrhaging and Obama says this is not any repudiation of his policies - it's just disappointment in the performance of the economy.

Thank you Lord for making our enemies blind - and that is the only thing that Obama got right. We, the free American people, are your enemies.

November 1, 2010

The LA Times reports that the latest Gallup Poll sees an historic shift in the House. Perhaps many as sixty seats will change hands. If that liberal ink glob of mindless mush says sixty seats, plan on seventy.

Gallup's latest findings this morning predict Republicans will easily gain the necessary 39 seats to seize control of the House regardless of voter turnout. They predict a minimum GOP gain of 60 seats "with gains well beyond that possible." That kind of rout would be the worst shellacking of a president's party in a half-century.

Bearing in mind DC's words just below this post, Ronald Reagan would be proud. Let's do this for the Gipper and toss the grifters out. The key is voter participation - get the vote out. This is absolutely imperative. In Gallup's own words:

Republicans' turnout advantage is highlighted by two key questions used as part of Gallup's likely voter model. One asks Americans how much thought they have given to the upcoming elections; the other asks those who say they plan to vote how certain they are about voting.

The Oct. 28-31 poll finds that nationally, 75% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican are "absolutely certain" they will vote in the 2010 midterms, compared with 68% of Democrats. While these figures are not the only indicator of relative turnout strength -- this is just one question in Gallup's seven-item likely voter model -- the record-high seven-point gap between the parties is strongly indicative of a relative surge in GOP turnout.

So Code Red - broken glass mode - is being broadcast on all channels. Use your siren to clear the intersections and proceed when safe.

UPDATEThis photo was just too delicious to pass up. Come Nov. 3rd, this car will hopefully be making the rounds in every State in the Union.

Long ago in a galaxy far, far away ... I cast my first vote for president for Ronald Reagan. I embraced being a Republican because that was the home of Ronald Reagan and conservatism.

It seemed to me then, and even now, that certain Republicans never embraced Reagan, though. He was too simple, too bland, dare I say, too conservative and in love with America. Reagan was really a midwesterner who migrated to California. And he took his values with him.

I wrote it off as different styles, and perhaps minimized what I saw. But looking back, I think a lot of the blue bloods never understood or appreciated Reagan's appeal, and I think they resented it.

Pres. Reagan singlehandedly put the Republican Party back on the map after the Nixon debacle. And he made conservatism mainstream. He defied critics by proving that conservatism works and that America was indeed a "Shining City on a Hill."

Still, the Republican establishment in large part never accepted him. They longed for some one more, shall we say, comfortable talking international finance with a bunch of bankers. They got that in George H.W. Bush, and then we got a failed one-term presidency. Read my lips.

And then we got Ross Perot (who was a lip reader, remember?) and also two terms of Bill Clinton. And let us remember the glorious candidacy of Bob"Watch out Chino!!"Dole.

Then came Pres. George W. Bush, who defined himself as a "compassionate conservative." I understand the motive, and I will always like and respect Pres. Bush. But we who are conservatives know that "conservative" needs no modifier. If you modify the term, well, you are something other than conservative.

We each have seminal moments that cause us to alter course. For me, 9/11 cemented the primacy of the role of U.S. security in national politics. For that reason, I think the presidency of Pres. Bush was judged too harshly by many. Yes, it's true that he failed to emphasize economic conservatism -- of course, he did exactly what he told us he would do in that regard -- but he kept his eye on the ball. And the ball during the first decade of the 20th century was first and foremost national security. We now have the Obama Administration experience with multiple attacks and emboldened enemies in only two years for comparison.

Though he did some good things (i.e., tax cuts, S.C. nominees, reducing regulation), Pres. Bush missed huge opportunities to use the bully pulpit and advance the conservative ideals that a lot of the Republican base -- conservatives -- believes in. With the Republicans failing to fight for conservatism, Democrats gained control of the entire government in '08, and now we have seen the disasterous consequences.

Recently, the unfolding candidacy of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware brought me to another crossroads experience. The arguments made against O'Donnell -- that Mike Castle deserved the Republican nomination because he was electable and she was some sort of dolt -- combined with the treatment of her after she got the nomination by the Republican establishment did it for me.

The Establishment also argued about how crucial it was to have a majority in the Senate, as well (even though it takes 60 to really exercise control), and they said that a vote for O'Donnell would fatally and definitively undermine that effort.

But what good is a majority if you fail to use it? What good is a party if its members are better friends with the Demo base than ours? And who says conservatives are unelectable? "Moderates," that's who. I am coming to think this charade of "electability" has been a lot like the Emperor's New Clothes.

On top of that, we have seen the behavior of Lisa Murkowsky in Alaska ... sticking her finger in the eye of Alaska Republicans ... and Charlie Crist, becoming another third-party GOP foe in the Florida Senate race, after the conservative candidate won the primary.

Though they typically demand us to get in line and support their uninspiring candidacies in the name of "unity," this is what the moderate types do. They treat the Marco Rubios of the world as "extremists;" if Crist calls Rubio -- a mainstream conservative --"extreme" one more time, my head will explode. Indeed, if we need people such as Crist, Castle, and 'Kowsky for a majority, what use is such a majority? Put another way, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Going forward, they can change and get under the tent we are making. It will be plenty big enough.

So, here's the deal. I am still a Republican, but I am with Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin. We are conservatives first, as we have always been. We believe this new stampede of Republicans is being elected for a purpose other than simply to hold the office and "mind the store."

The "store," if you will, is going out of business. The time for "minding" it is over. It's time to fix and defend it.

That's what we conservatives in this coming wave will expect of our elected representatives.

Ignore us and we will see you in the primary.

And in the general election, we will fight you on the beaches, in the Northeast, in the Pacific Northwest, in the mountains, in the Rust Belt ... lo, even in the inner cities. Because we rubes have shown that the whole nation responds to authenticity, to consistency ... to conservative ideas.

October 31, 2010

"... We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender ... "

-- Winston Churchill, 1940

One thing that has been interesting and inspiring to watch in this campaign season is how Tea Party types (read: conservatives) have gotten after their opponents and unapologetically campaigned as who they are.

It's been rough and tumble out there, per usual. But look at what this new wave of candidates has done. They are showing us the way.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul smacked down his Demo opponent for dealing the religion card (of all things for a Demo) and trying to argue that one's college days now disqualify one for office. I thought Obama ended all of that. Paul said his opponent is without shame and honor. Bravo.

In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell took down Mike Castle and the Republican establishment (the same types who used to say Reagan would have a tough time winning an election, you know), and she's fought bravely against the vilest of personal attacks. She called her opponent out on the Establishment Clause. Few politicians know this well enough to argue it; fewer still have the guts to make the case, as O'Donnell did.

In Florida, Marco Rubio has run a brilliant campaign against Charlie Crist and his cronies. Rubio has weathered attacks and used a little Reaganesque humor at his debate -- poking fun at Crist for being a "heckler." He has taken the fight to the opposition with clarity and with zeal. He is going to win Tuesday, and I will be tickled ... and the nation will be better off.

In Alaska, Joe Miller took down the Murkowski machine, and then faced wheelbarrows of defication from Murky and company, as well as a write-in campaign. When Murkowski won a ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court that required lists of write-in candidates to be available at the polls, Miller and his allies encouraged many more write-ins to join the parade, drowning out the Murkowsky message. Fantastic.

Then there's Ruth McClung, the 28-year-old rocket scientist taking on her veteran Demo opponent and the SEIU maching in AZ. Ruth is another outspoken person of faith. She is just tremendous.

In Massachusetts, Sean Bielat has used a consistent conservative message, charm, a lot of smiles, and a pile of wit to get after Barney Frank. Meanwhile, Frank calls for help from every Demo imaginable. Massachusetts. Massachusetts, folks.

And Col. Allan West in Florida ... I love this guy. He is taking the fight to the left in Palm Beach, with purpose and a smile.

It's a beautiful thing to watch.

You know, when conservatives lose primaries, they are disappointed. But they generally join the team, fight to win this election and the next primary. When RINO's/establishment types lose, they make third-party and write-in runs.

I think conservatives are better fighters and teammates. The two are related.

And let's remember that the Great Communicator himself knew a little about fighting to win as a conservative. Check out this clip:

This Halloween Eve, we wind down DC's Pre-Election Music Fest and Stress Relief, Thank You Very Much ...

This evening, we have a round-tripper ... verily, a four-bagger.

I have decided to go back in time to bring some of our elderly readers "into the mix," so to speak. I am thinking they will have heard a couple of these songs, at least the two that are over a half-century old.

Tonight, I am pulling from the vault some great tunes to provide a pick-me-up and and a spring in the ol' step ... even old steps. Yes, it's true.

First, I start with this ... a "midnight confession" on this Halloween Eve, if you will. I like this simple old song, including the Herman-Munsteresque organ:

Where are the horns, by the way? Off stage? But I digress ... Grass roots ... that's how they say both "Tea Party" and "foundation of California's bumper crop" a half century later. Wow, and the song still sounds good.

Fast forward about 30 years, to the 90's ... ah, the decade of Clinton. In the midst of that perplexing and often-maddening decade, the following song was destined to become the theme song of a talk radio host who would turn rightward in the following decade. His name is Dennis Miller. So, we persevere, keep smiling and press on. Take a listen:

Next, for those of us who have been "up tight" about the state of the nation, let's travel back in time to when it was good to be uptight ... and out of sight.

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Material posted on this blog is made available for educational and informative purposes, and as such constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. , section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this blog is provided without profit for benign research and educational purposes.